That’s the EU goal, for the sake of the analogy for demanding regulatory alignment, China wants to reduce its cost of production
The EU can issue waivers for Chinese imports and achieve that. Unless you’re arguing that China wants to reduce the EU’s cost of production. Which doesn’t make much sense.
For what it’s worth, you’re contorting your argument too much “for the sake of” an analogy that was evidently not fully thought through.
You are only looking at trade in one direction, China wants to reduce its high cost for exports to the EU, the EU on the other hand would like to turn a deficit into a surplus, to better compete in the market.China may say the cost to do that is regulatory alignment
Now if the EU is desperate for an FTA with China, it can theoretically issue waivers for China-origin goods, which is not the same thing as dropping it’s own standards. It doesn’t need to, and it’s exports will still meet Chinese standards by virtue of exceeding them.
Simply put, the EU does not risk undercutting China. Consequently, as long as it meets Chinese standards, why would China care if the EU holds itself to higher standards (and puts itself at a disadvantage through higher costs)?
Is it too complex to follow? Should I dumb it down to simpler language?
It a pretty simple analogy and by your fierce reaction to it you too are against ceding regulatory alignment to another country if they do demand
Fierce? Anyway, no, I think that if the EU want to export to markets with higher standards, they absolutely should be expected to achieve those higher standards - or lose access. And that applies to everyone, not just the EU.
That’s the only thing we are debating on a hypothetical China/EU FTA
Whatever you think you’re debating is based on false premises stemming from your apparent misunderstanding of regulatory standards.
Like your claim that the regulatory alignment would not allow the UK to adopt higher standards. Thats a (perhaps deliberate) falsehood. Your own Prime Minister insists that the UK already exceeds EU regulatory standards in some areas. And that’s under the fully enforecable EU rule book.
Its not like it is a must have for the UK. Currently as you know there is no FTA with the US and what trade agreements are in place the US/UK has agreed to a MRA when the EU/US MRA no longer applies to the UK.
Perhaps not. Just going to note that Brexiteers keep bringing it up and writing long articles about its importance on the Telegraph and ConHome etc multiple times a week.
Quite obvious you don’t see anything similar about a deal with the UK, in the US.
I don’t think HMG will set a timeline for negotiations to be finalised as the UK has a trade surplus with the US.
“U.S. goods and services trade with United Kingdom totaled an estimated $261.9 billion in 2018. Exports were $140.4 billion; imports were $121.5 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with United Kingdom was $18.9 billion in 2018.”https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/euro ... ed-kingdom
The goods numbers for 2019 are roughly the same; the US had a $5.8 billion surplus in 2019 compared to $5.7 billion in 2018.https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/ba ... .html#2019
It’s the US who want to get the EU’s market share within the UK. Another subtle reason why the EU is demanding regulatory alignment, for the EU its economic dominance and protect it from more competition
Seems the at least half of the US hasn’t clued in. If this was so important to the US, it wouldn’t have turned into a partisan issue. But it has:
“Senator Chris Murphy, also a Democrat, said the two countries should ultimately reach a free trade agreement, but said Washington should not reward Britain for leaving the EU and should focus first on reaching a trade deal with Brussels.”
Of note, the Democrats are also making noises not dissimilar to the EU:
“A future U.S.-UK trade agreement must incorporate strong provisions on worker rights, environmental protection, and enforcement to ensure bipartisan support, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (a Democrat) said on Friday, staking out a claim for Congress to help shape any such accord.”https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZU2UN
At the end of the day we are never going to agree with each other s the hypothetical China demands of regulatory alignment is all moot as you like to say this will be the last I comment on it as its off topic
We are completely agreed that it does not serve whatever purpose you wanted to use it to serve.
I have no doubt that the EU can absorb no deal if it can ride through the latest bout of financial crises with corona and if its members can agree on new budgets less the UK income.
But I also think the UK will prevail as well on no deal, will it be a smooth ride hell No.
Indeed. The point you seem to have missed there is that the impact of no deal on the EU will be relatively lower than that on the UK.
The word “prevail” is meaningless here. Every country “prevails” over time. Post-WWII Germany and Japan come to mind.
Corona can actually be viewed as a blessing in disguise. The UK has a much needed chance to reform to make itself more competitive on the global market place being tied to the EU was just holding back that reform
It’s a double edged sword - move too quickly or radically and you’ll get locked out of economies that are trying to rebuild their domestic industries, with an inevitable emphasis on standards.
A lot of that reform would have been easier to sell to trade partners pre-corona when their domestic industries weren’t in dire straits.
Being sovereign gives the UK much more room to manoeuvre to take advantage of the most likely new trading conditions across the globe once everyone has a chance to sit back and take stock on how the corona has impacted world trade.
It’s true. COVID gives everyone an opportunity to do that. Literally everyone is equally well placed.
Yep sovereignty comes at a price but I think it’s worth it
Great. Then why complain about everything the EU does?
No not really if the EU actually did not respect the wishes of the electorate in it deals with the UK from the beginning it tried everything in its power to either bind the UK to the EU hold a 2nd referenda or revoke anything but an independent UK
The EU deals with the elected UK government. It is not negotiating with the UK electorate. There is no “respect” or “disrespect” electorate issue here. In any case, the electorate isn’t a monolith - approximately 48% don’t feel disrespected by the EU.
No one is complaining most of us are rejoicing in the prospect that we will finally be free from the EU with or without a trade deal
And yet you’re here constantly complaining about how the EU is wrong to demand this or that in exchange for a deal. Even you’ve got to admit that’s a little strange.
Go rejoice instead.
Nothing weird in it at all, the UK wants to retain its sovereignty in all aspects of the trade deal but have the best deal it can achieve something that all sovereign nations have.
In other words, it’s doing everything it can to maintain the very same benefits Brexiteers claim do not matter.
Which then manifests itself as Brexiteer frustration with the EU for taking them at their word.
Yeah, I think the word “weird” sums it up.